Did Bush willingly commit a ZOT? Please say it ain't so

[always thr constitution]

I have been arguing with stupid libs for two days saying that Bush committed no crime because under the provisions of the USSID 18 and the FSIA, he could with perfect legitimacy eavesdrop on aliens involved in terrorist activities if he had AG approval.

However, what was puzzling is that Gonzales did not cite USSID 18; he cited the more dubious rationale of war powers approval. This would seem to indicate that Bush was spying on US citizens without a Court Order which clearly violates USSID 18 and the FSIA, and was using war powers approval to cover for it.

Now such actions are not unprecedented during wartime; however, since there has been no officiial declaration of war, there seems to be Constitutional as well as legal issues at work here.

I never thought Bush would resort to such extreme measures to skirt the law. I hope I am wrong. Please tell me why Bush didn't do this.

[IYellAtMyTV]

'Idiot. Wonder how long until the troll defenders show up to say you're right? '

Sadly, someone already has. Check #15, and the sign up date.

[BulletBobCo]

[Zavien Doombringer]

Try this to start. Good and informative.

http://www.slate.com/id/2060342/

[linda_22003]

1. Why are you holding the President guilty until proven innocent in this matter?
-- I've just been reading the press like everyone else.

2. Where is your outrage against the punks who leaked this?
-- The NYT had meetings at the White House, and omitted items from the article that the White House. I think it's odd they didn't run it long ago. If you mean the "punks who leaked this" in the administration or Congress, I don't know who they are.

3. Where is your outrage against members of Congress who hae known about and helped approve this activity and are now acting shocked, shocked that this has been going on?
-- I think it's pretty spineless that one of them wrote a note saying "I don't like it" and left it at that; the ones who knew what was going on had plenty of opportunity to stand up and be counted, but politicians in general are not particularly good at courage, I've noticed.

4. Why don't war powers cover this if the citizen is communicating with enemy personnel? We're not talking about somebody calling Tehran to talk to a mullah, we're talking about someone talking to an Al-Qaeda operative.
-- I don't know. I had no hand in writing the legislation.

5. Here's a scenario and a question. It's the height of the Cold War, and the FBI suspects that ana American citizen living near Otis Air Force base in Massachusetts is a Soviet agent. They have evidence that he has been speaking to person in the Soviet Union whose expertise is the study of our air defense. The pattern of his calls suggests he may be advising them of activity during exercises at the base. Otis is responsible for guarding Air approaches to New York City, among other things. There is a major Soviet Naval Aviation exercise scheduled to begin in the next few hours and this guy has placed two or three calls to the Soviet analyst in just the last three hours, even though there is no activity going on at the base. The FBI agent looking at the case says, "I don't want to be alarmist, but this guy could be advising them of flight activity at the base so they can sneak some bombers through. This guy could be telling them the coast is clear, or he could be getting instructions for a sabotage mission of some sort."

Court approval will take to the end of the day at least. Do you tap the guy's phone or not?

--- Depends. What color tie is he wearing? Geez, talk about a convoluted example. I'm sure it happens and I don't know what I would do. I hope that in any public office I would follow the Constitution and the law, since that is what I would be sworn to do.

[Zavien Doombringer]

try this site too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bill_of_Rights_is_not_a_suicide_pact

[Darksheare]

Yeah, saw that after I'd posted.
*chuckle*

[Darksheare]

"Depends. What color tie is he wearing? Geez, talk about a convoluted example. "


But that's real life.
And real life is messy.
Cutting to the chase, the courts don't act fast enough, nd valuable intel could slip through.
There was an attack planned on a mall in Ohio.
It was stopped because of.. drum roll... eavesdropping.

[Darksheare]

I just love troll defenders.
This guy got the zot because he was a troll.
That determination is made by the Mods and by the boss.
If you have a problem with it, take it up with them.

[WhiteGuy]

I just love troll defenders.
This guy got the zot because he was a troll.
That determination is made by the Mods and by the boss.
If you have a problem with it, take it up with them.


I defended no one.

I posted a response to someone who was, rightly or wrongly, commenting on the substance of the article, not just the perceived character of the thread originator.

The "troll" zot threads are viewed as some great team building exercise for a vocal group here who sees anyone who doesn't believe the way they do as a threat, IMHO.

I really don't care who decides to start the "zot" threads or who decides to end them. I have no problem with the mods or the boss or even you for that matter.

I see the zot threads for what they are, and for why they are started.

[Casloy]

There have been no terrorists strikes in the US in 4 years. Next question?

[Darksheare]

I just love it when troll defenders try to play.

"I defended no one."

Really?
Post 44:
Please Linda, you're going to ruin a perfectly good "troll frenzy"

44 posted on 12/20/2005 12:01:46 PM EST by WhiteGuy (Vote for gridlock)

---

Try again.

"I posted a response to someone who was, rightly or wrongly, commenting on the substance of the article, not just the perceived character of the thread originator."

*snort*

The trolls have been trying to say that the President has done something Illegal and they have no idea what FISA says.
THAT was what the troll was saying.
And yes, you are defending teh troll again, in post 169.

And you're yelping.
Toss a stone into a pack of dogs, and the one that yelps is the one you hit.

"I really don't care who decides to start the "zot" threads or who decides to end them. I have no problem with the mods or the boss or even you for that matter."

You had a problem with this one, as per post 44.

"I see the zot threads for what they are, and for why they are started."
You just contradicted yourself.
You claimed above that you had no problem with them.
Funny, you whined in post 44 about it.

[WhiteGuy]

Yawn..................

[Mr. Silverback]

Thank you sir!

[Darksheare]

Thought so.

[Grampa Dave]

It is so laughable how the so called walk on water conservatives on Free Republic want a trial for every radical lib, yet they are immediately ready to electronically lynch GW whenever the MSM lies about him.

Excellent job on your reply.

[Zavien Doombringer]

sorry bro, should have been there for your six...

rule number one...

Never leave your Leadman....

Rule number two..

Never leave your Wingman...

[Darksheare]

Don't worry about it.
He tried to spar and lost.
Even better when they signal defeat.
;-)

But.. next time, blanketing fire and bounding overwatch.

[Zavien Doombringer]

When you are hit in the face with truth, it penetrates farther and hotter than any HEAT.

[Darksheare]

True.
Been seeing alot of trolls lately on the FISA wiretapping issue.
Seems they forgot about the mall attack plot in Ohio.
It was stopped due to "wiretapping."

And then there's the genius types defending the trolls.
(Saw one in the thread by Dances with Fascists at post 232.)

It has been... interesting.
*chuckle*

[Zavien Doombringer]

I was wondering why there were many Troll defenders...

New kind of "sleeper"?